搜索结果: *

If you are on PC i recommend using the AutoTreader mod (as long as you have the game on steam it's even in the workshop), it might not make Trading XP any faster but it saves a bunch of time as you just need a click to buy and sell.

Best setting i found for it from an user on Reddit were this:
Buy under 80
Sell above 105
Price search radius UNLIMITED.

total Inventroy space used 101
Max of inventory filled by 1 item 10%

Haven't had a good experience with the setting based on green and red (the mod seems to act funky if you don't use personal settings).
Most of the money i made was coming from Tools, Silk, Pottery and Fur.

Horses seem to be quite bad to trade for, but i think the extra speed and the carry capacity is worth it, while providing some nice profits when you can sell some.

Haven't tried grazing animals yet, but they should be quite good as well. Only issue is that you have to buy them instead of extra mules if you don't mind sacrificing some speed for extra cargo

As for towns you should always stop by Sanala (for huge profits mainly) , Myzea and Dunglanys for silk. Epicrotea and Rovalt for tools. And stop by the 2 villages above Varcheg for Fur, then stop by Varcheg itself. And don't forget to do the same with Ostican and the fur villages around it as well.
You can skip most of the Khuzait and Sturgia didn't find them to be great for deals.

I think i got around 1 point in trading every 2-3 towns past 250 and all i needed to do was stop, click a button and go to the next town

Like some said. Get the best T6 troops you can.

For 2 reasons. You will likely only need to pay their wages and almost never hire new ones.

They will make back that money with loot.

A thing many don't value enough is that keeping an army of lower tiers is actually more expensive, since you will lose them more often and you will need to upgrade new troops constantly.

Having an army of the best T6 units will not cost you as much, especially Fians. They are infantry and require no horse.

The price of upgrading is far higher than the upkeep, never forget that. As long as you can fight you can also loot, then sell it .Obviously the amount of units you should keep depends on the stage of the game you are in.

anoddhermit 说:

I find major variances between battles if I simply switch sides with the AI in custom battle. For example, swapping between 100 Imperial Legionary and 100 Sturgian Heavy Spearman, whichever I'm controlling wins(as Arcor vs Ethilde) even if all I do is F1+F3.

点击展开...

that's why testing like that doesn't yield good results. It's a common mistake every single tester makes early on because "it cuts on time" it gives you the results much faster but of questionable utility. Same for those who use RTS to speed things up, it changes the way the game calculates DMG significantly but it's much faster.

You need a "standardized" enemy, a lot of patience, a wide knowledge of the combat AI mechanics and then gather the numbers (Kills and deaths) of the unit that isn't "standard"
Kills are more important when the unit loses while deaths are more important when the unit wins.

the mistake you see a lot when using a standard unit is using the Legionary. A lot of people make the assumption that: If a unit is good against a T5 unit they are automatically good against lower tiers.
That can't be further away from the truth, especially for melee combat. Some troops are miles better against lower tiers than higher ones and vice versa.
To avoid this you have to run tests against the entire spectrum tier 1 to 5, but since 1 battle with 5 different tiers of units will be heavily RNG dependent.
You are kinda forced to run each test, for every tier, separately.

Then you compare the numbers among the troops and you find which one preforms better
But Custom Battles is very reliable when used like that (not when used as a tournament format).

When it comes to tactics Custom Battles defaults the enemy AI to 150 tactics, which is quite common to find in your standard NPC.
Then attacker and defender can change the approach of the AI, generally speaking, tests as far as melee is concerned are run as the player being the defender, so the AI will charge no matter what.

there are mods that you can use to create captain builds (Character reload) and add the effect of party leading perks (Enhanced Battle Test: it requires you to be in a campaign to work).
All you need to do is using character reload to give your character the perks, make sure you are the captain of the formation and profit.

The reason why nobody uses them it's because it generally doesn't have a huge impact on certain units over others of the same class, they all improve in an almost linear manner (so it's almost redundant).

The only significant difference would be Crossbow perks and Bow perks. Crossbow perks are much worse and their units have a much lower potential with a good build in comparison to archers.
Throwing weapons are also like that, with troops that have more projectiles becoming exponentially better when perks are added then those who don't.
Still all of those changes can just be "assumed" as running this kind of tests would lead to mostly predictable results.
This are differences that if you played enough of the game you know work like that from experience.

What really matters at the end of the day is the equipment of the unit, perks will improve their stats but they will also improve them for other units as well.
One thing that works every time is testing with no perks but having a good methodology that doesn't relay on troop X beating troop Y in order for troop X to be classified as better.
But looks if Troops X performed better than Troop Y in the same scenario.

this way you can tell whoever is watching that this is what they will 100% have to expect, then perks will make them better.
Testing with no perks also highlights if a unit needs a certain type of perks instead of another for example.
testing with no build is better than testing with a bad build, a bad build can and will skew the results in favor of a style of unit over the other.
Ending up in making the results even worse.

Then after you find the data you need to figure out what it actually means, and be able to explain why unit X performed better than unit Y.
When something is weird is generally an AI issue, when it's not it could be predicted even before running the tests.

Like how the T4 Falxman is worse than all the other T5 shock troops after the AI was fixed in 1.9.
Poor armor, great weapon, same AI. there is no way they are still as good as they were in 1.8. and in fact they aren't. They regressed in every single category in comparison to their 1.8. performance, still they are more than likely the best T4.

Anyhow all of this to say that Custom Battles is great when used well, a lot of people have stumbled over videos where the feature is used not as well and made a strong opinion on why it's bad for testing units.

Unfortunately a lot of testers, myself included, had, will and are making the same mistakes since the game was first launched. It's part of the growth process to make mistakes.

i invite people to not call names on the above presented video but instead inviting the creator to understand why the methods are considered skewed and such.

Apocal 说:

I don't think anyone was comparing them going up against T2 in this thread? Bluko's tests were against T4 and T5 units and show a pretty big difference.

点击展开...

yes exactly. Read the conclusion part to understand why i did.

Bluko did show a big difference only when using tactics. The problem many have, and from what i was able to understand you as well. is how the AI can mass them up. The AI tactics aren't comparable to a player in the slightest.

So if there is no significant difference against T2 there is even less against T5 and so on

Apocal 说:

I don't know if I would call going from one (random) death among the defenders to forty deaths "basically insignificant." Why would I ever want to make recruits more dangerous in the late game when it is effectively impossible to choke off another kingdom's supply of them? The AI continuously comes at player in the late game. One of the very few ways to actually hurt the AI is to kill or capture all its higher tier troops.

Bluko at least made it clear (elsewhere) he doesn't give a **** about late game balancing because he doesn't play it:

点击展开...

Because of this: DATA & conclusions.

@Bluko88 your problem is that you know how the game works.

others don't and can't see how this change is basically insignificant.

Like you said: There is a method to your madness.
Some here are more like: Madness without a method.

If only they knew how the game actually works they wouldn't be so much against the idea of giving some recruits a shield.

But this makes me wonder: If instead of asking "should some recruits have shields?" You asked "Should there be a perk that allows recruits to have shields?"

How much different the hole thing might have been.

There is a perk at 150 Leadership, we all know how powerful it is, if there was a perk at 125 just for recruits it wouldn't be broken in comparison... just saying to those that oppose the idea like it's the plague.

I'll get to work on testing recruits with and without the mod, see if i can quantify the changes once and for all. I'll need a few hours.

From what i read on the linked post for someone to snap like that it takes a lot. This isn't an issue of "thicker skin" it's much deeper and serious.

But it is of psychological nature for sure.
Still, in my opinion, altough the response was intense it was probably coming and somewhat intended.

Cutting yourself like that means that he has been pondering about quitting for a while.
That last vent was the realization he was done for good.

i mean @Brano i get you.

but this is an hypothetical debate. People give out their reasons and some take it the wrong way.

A bit of community brainstorming, which i like, especially when someone presents some data and evidence with videos of the concept.
it's not for everyone sure, and it likely will not change anything going forward. But i'd rather have posts like this than some that we all know pop out every other day.

@Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James You are asking to much from a man that thinks the half of 19 is 2. And that 2 shillings that is roughly 1 or 2 weeks wages for a low rank archer of the time was the equivalent of half of a Ferrari car. Not to mention the pay in the link is "daily" not monthly.

The Middle ages sure were great if that was real

Here instead the pay for soldiers was even lower but as stated in both links: there was an "extra pay"compensation was given in form of loot. thus the relatively low amount of pay in comparison to a civil worker.

Not to mention information on the subject is very limited, as it's records of battles. And depending on the historian you can find basically anything you want to hold your theories, that's why i would much rather use common sense and logic.

Non of this leads me to believe that it was that hard to save up enough to buy a cheap shield and a cheap sword, considering kids started working or helping the family full time at around the age of 7 and could be drafted at the age of 14 or 16.
Then if we even look at the English doctrine we know all men between age X and Y had to train at least once a week, generally in bow.

The only one that couldn't save the money were the ones with no jobs, sick or dead family members.


The man also seems to not understand that the kingdoms economies also made of war a great deal and shops and merchants were basically everywhere and there was an industry that for the time could be compared to not be lesser than the later eras.

He also forgets about inheriting items, gifts from friends and family that returned from war, passing the objects (in not great conditions but still better than nothing) down the line.

Or accounts of Lords buying gear for their own soldiers at lower cost since, generally speaking when you buy in bulk you pay less, or even simply other soldiers that sold looted items for food or less or just at below market price.
Not to mention the advantage of gearing your people better if you could, which the most ambitious and competitive lords sure did, for most, war was nothing but real life chess with a prize (land or simple glory) in the end.
And the fact that if you were a successful commander or captain there was a lot to be gained.
The last thing an imposing and rich commander wants to say is that he lost a fight because he had too many people without a board. You can imagine the personal ridicule.

For manufacturing there are plenty of ways to get resources, villagers weren't morons with no idea of what they were doing. Most of them were more resourceful than most of the people today.
Not to mention that unlike today society that is aimed at the use of "specialized" workers the civilians in the middle ages, the ones in rural villages especially, had to do a large variety of jobs in the same week. Just looking at the lesser developed countries is enough to understand that was and still is a reality.

Anyway a well researched video was made on this very subject and it explains well how our friend is massively overestimating the price and underappreciating the entire industry of the time

And glue was obtained in a bunch of different ways than just by slaughtering farm animals like: fish, vegetables, eggs, cheese, milk, plants and hunting were all ways to get glue, let alone that the amount of glue you can get from a single dead animal is plenty, (even humans could make good glue since they contain collagen as well).
The Romans for example used fish glue to bond their shields. England, like Italy or France or Spain was surrounded by the sea. Fish would have been a fairly common resource.

Metal could be smelted from the old helmets, armors and weapons of dead soldiers, nails could be made out of wood, yeah, you would be surprised of how good wood nails can be.
They were used to keep ships together just to have an idea of how strong ,when used well, they could be and how resourceful human engineers were for the time. Sure they had the downside of rotting but for a 60 days to even an year campaign it should be no problem with some maintenance.

Another thing to keep in mind is that shields of the same type and color could be given out to the soldiers to avoid "friendly fire" scenarios.
But same colors of uniforms and other equipment had a greater role later down the history line than the time Bannerlord should take place in. Altough it shouldn't be discounted, as reports of friendly fire and "mistakes" exist from at least the Romans.

There is a lack of complexity in the arguments which is fine, as long as the evidence leads them to realize that they are being stubborn and not considering the wide range of possibilities on most points, or well, there isn't much that can be done.

Just wanted to link some more evidence and give out some more reasoning

geala 说:

That could be taken out of an old military manual from the time when real cavalry charges took place. Cavalry never was great in charging dense unwavered infantry formations.

点击展开...

Yeah it would be common sense but you know how games can be at times. So even if my statement sounded stupid in the context of a game is less so.

But i don't find Bannerlord cavalry to be in a bad state right now. Noble cav is quite good and even standard T5 are much better.
Some extra improvements might be made but for now it's fine

five bucks 说:

You are not appreciating how far the world has come since 1000AD. Today we have power saws, plantation timber harvested by machines, production lines, mines with giant digging machines and industrial furnaced, etc which all vastly reduces the cost of making things. That was the whole damn point of the Industrial Revolution: before that, making things was difficult, expensive and usually in the domain of artisan guilds.

点击展开...

Today armies are not 10K man also. But that isn't important i bet.

But it's fine man. you are right, if not you are relentless. Better to give up instead of wasting time making good point that your close mindedness will find a way to discard anyway.

have fun with the others and bring on your crusade of Shields weren't common or cheap. despite accounts stating the opposite.
The question of the poll is :Should SOME recruits have shields. You said some could have had shield. But then you seem to go on in the other direction in your follow up statements.

I tried to be reasonable and i failed. reason does tend to fail with people like you

Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James 说:

so their absense from the list (along with many other battlefield essentials) is not evidence that they were not used.

点击展开...

very good point that i didn't even notice.
So standing for @five bucks reasoning he also must think that man at arms and knights didn't carry shields.

Sounds like there is a flaw somewhere in there.
They probably weren't listed or ever mentioned because well, common.

Shields were cheap mate.
Cmon They needed 2 boards, a few cuts, some glue and some metal to stick together. And that isn't even the simplest of designs. Yet they were less pricy than a gambeson set.
Not to even mention that some camps might had repair and smith shops before attacks so to make them and repair weaponry on the fly.
Source? sure sure 2

This is a shop that sells them today. Now if the least expensive cost less than 20$ today i can only imagine how little they did back then when wood was used and abundant and blacksmiths were around every corner.

Did you try to use formation 5 for the second group of archers instead of 4?
I think you did but if you didn't that might help.
What i think is happening is that the game wants to default formation 4 to Horse Archers, but since you want all mounted units to be in formation 3 the game starts having a seizure. Probably some funky coding.

Other question. Does this happen when you are in an army or even when you are alone?

If you find it happening in armies but not alone it might be caused by the AI defaulting units into their standard formations thus overriding your personalized formations.
I always try to use the main 4 as they are and use the rest for second and third formations.
I haven't experienced it in a while but i think it did happen a few times to me as well.

I advise to try to not use formation 4 if you can. if it solves it then what you can do to have the mounted formation stay together is using the toggle and transfer command after the start of the fight. Captain bonuses should be applied as normal, using the captain of the formation that you merged into.

So if you merged formation 4 into formation 3 the captain of the cavalry gives the bonuses.

@marcelluswallace try looking for Flesson19 on any advice on caravans. The man has a lot of experience and data on them. Both here on the forums and on his YouTube channel

@veronicaaltoids it's an entire year if you fail the attempt before you can try again

five bucks 说:

Recruits are not militia. Militia are militia.

点击展开...

Oh boy how predictable you are.
So you are telling me that a civilian worker, that dedicates himself to (if needed) the protection of his own town is better equipped than a guy who volunteers to join an army, and gets trained by said army, and gets fed by same army, basically the army is paying for his training and life?
The only thing the army wants in return is his service, that might very well last 1 battle.

Do you realize that the typical army recruit is as equipped if not better the moment they leave training to join a company than your typical policeman?
Why would that have been any different at the time? Yes sure you don't want these guys to fight and you will find any way to keep them off the battlefield but if you have to they are technically ready and you have to give them the tools to survive and operate if they don't have them themselves. Not doing so would be either desperate or mad.

Let alone the fact that a recruit likely trains 6 days a week and a militiamen trains when he can or doesn't
And for a force of volunteers there is a rigorous selection while anybody can join a milita. One is literally an aspiring professional the other is not or used to be a professional.

In the game we pay to get them, so we can safely assume that they haven't just decided to join us, but have been trained up by the recruiters of the town than then sell them to the passing lords.

in the game you aren't recruiting for nothing, you pay a fee to the notable to get the soldier, so a minimal training has been done.
then there is cooldown after recruiting. I think of that as new recruits are training up, switching from peasants to aspiring soldiers. You aren't buying peasants off the landlord, you are getting recruits.

Like a recruit is this: a person newly enlisted in the armed forces and not yet fully trained. to notice the word "fully" but that doesn't mean they don't know the basics. you can still be a recruit even after weeks of training.

A militia is this: a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. "emergency" Your last line of defense, the worst of the worst typically. Let alone the fact that the army might cooperate with them but don't have full control over.

And a civilian is this: a person not in the armed services or the police force.
Waiting on what you can find to make any of this sound stupid.

Most of the accounts i was able to find states that shields were one of the cheapest equipment you could get, don't know about you by if i was required to buy my own equipment after training i would get some kind of weapon and a shield. And i think most were able to afford them.

thing is i am sure you can find accounts of recruits "renting" equipment and having to pay with work hours or having their wages severely cut.
I am no economist but i know a few friends who are and there are many upsides to use such procedures to keep your army decently equipped.
I am sure lords and their "advisors" weren't any different and came up with similar stuff all the times.

Doesn't mean everyone did, but most surely could. Then those who didn't could always pick one from a dead soldier during the fight.

That would be smart but there is no mechanic in the game that allows recruits to grab a shield, even if it's a smart thing to do and something pretty much everyone would have done.
But i know for sure that there is such a mechanic for shielded troops. if their shield is destroyed and they find the time to pick a new one off the ground they do.

So the way you compensate that is giving them a very crappy shield. it doesn't only make sense but it's the smartest thing to do from the soldier prospective.

or you could add the above mentioned mechanic to the recruits.

you'll find a way to make even common sense look wrong anyway. At least you can entertain us all.
Also pardon me but you know the reference material you used was just from England right? If i recall correctly Engliand is not the entirety of Europe or the only nation present in Medieval history.

Are you working under the assumption that the only true system in place at the time was English? like everyone else didn't have theirs and how they might work differently? Cause i mean, sure you can only look at the English armies only since it proves your argument correct but who would they be in Calradian terms? The Vlandians? Battanians? Western Empire?

Scandinavian and Italian cities armies didn't use the same system. And likely everyone had it's own in the end.

This is the difference between us.
i and others can find solutions even after our first statements, we can change our mind and look at different directions
You get stuck in one line of thinking and can't get out of it even when people bring forward good options. It's unfortunate man, it really is.

don't tell @Chest Hunter that you can very easily run an enemy formations of archers out simply by going left and right with your horse and keeping your shield high.
There is no need to tell a Grand Master of strategy the best strategy to use.

On a serious note, a T5 infantry formation or cavalry (even better since horse armor) can very easily tank all the volleys of 200 mixed archers and lose pretty much nobody. As long as you stay at around (150m/feet whatever) far away and wait for roughly 5 minutes the enemy archers will be out and you might have lost 3 units for doing so.

I did this test a while back using Fian Champions to test the shields effectiveness of troops, you have no idea how little they killed, but most importantly how little shields they destroyed.

if you were to charge cavalry you would lose plenty more, since after the first charge the Knight will show it's back to the archers that can very easily pick him off the horse.
It's almost like keeping your shield in front of your enemy works.
There is no ROCK / PAPER / SCISSOR in the game. there are tiers of units. Some are S tiers, some are not. the only real ROCK / PAPER / SCISSOR scenario happens in simulated fights where it works similarly to what @Chest Hunter described, altough much. much simpler.

Some combat mods do introduce a similar mechanic to the game but Vanilla is way simpler than that. It's unfortunate but that's the reality of it.

Now there is no need to make fun of @Bluko88 he does make a very good point and he isn't advocating for good shields on the T1 units.
He is just asking them to be better than the T0 (pesants) since T0 units have more skill and better equipment than T1 units.

Giving half of the templates a crap shield would at least compensate that. And make the recruits feel like an upgrade if we happen to have 10 T0 units in our party and want to upgrade them.
That's the point is he making. It's not just from a tactical side (which giving them some terrible shields isn't going to make them that much better) but also design wise since currently upgrading a T0 to a T1 is a net loss. in gold, equipment and skill.

i used recruits. imperial. in the tests. They do have pitchforks but 1/4 does.

But i did see the horses getting stop the way that it was described by the poster. And the horses just stops soon after impact, and has a tough time getting trough even when pushed by another horseman behind them

So he does make a fair point. Now it's up to figuring out what 0 and 100 tactics means in the mod i used when we convert those values to the game.
If it works like kaoses i think its 0 to 330.

Carióceco 说:

Against imperial recruits, same thing they stop and accumulate there:

点击展开...

well, guess i didn't post in time but i am glad we are getting the same results

So i switched to the Enehanced battle test mod and i was able to get a similar scenario happen when the enemies had 0 tactics and 100.

now i don't know if that is 0 as 0 and 100 as 330 or not. But at 50 (halfway) tactics i encountered the same as in custom battles.
at this point i am unsure if it's just a matter of something changed or not. But it might.

What i was able to notice is that (at 0 and 100 tactics) in order to make the horses stop the infantry was more packed and deep than at 50 tactics where they stayed in a longer and thinner line.

only thing i can say for sure after this is: avoid charging against a tight infantry formation.